Once again, I will try to be the voice of reason. We've discussed this constantly. If, and it is becoming more and more evident at least to me, that the original reason for introducing emv when this thread started over 2 years ago was the increasing difficulty in using non emv compliant cards i.e. magnetic strip cards and for the most part that problem has been solved, why is it so important for some whether the card be signature priority or pin priority. The only difference is if the card is lost or stolen so if the card is in your possession, there's no problem. If the card is lost or stolen, not an every day occurance I might add, you are covered by the zero liability clause. (Yes I know using self service in London can be a pain but no cvm would solve that and I blame the merchants for that as no cvm is allowable for small purchases). Does it make some of you guys, no disrespect intended, feel more cultured (or Europeaned) by using a pin to complete a transaction? Do you not think the banks have done all sorts of surveys on this matter and havd come to the conclusion, like it or not, that more people prefer no pin? Do you think people lay awake at night thinking what will happen if my card is lost or stolen? Just get a card from UNFCU, stick it in your wallet and if you are in a situation, probably very very rare and becoming rarer the day, where you have difficulty using whatever emv compliant card you have, you have your back up.
The amount of time we have wasted here .....whining and moaning about this, at least in my humble opinion and based on my own experience, is simply a waste of time. The die has been cast and it isn't going to change by a lengthy thread on a blog even by affluent people who think they know what's best for everybody. (And hes, if I had my druthers, I would prefer pin preference but it simply is no longer that big an issue).